Sikhs Parade for World Peace

I couldn't help but laugh out loud when I saw a photograph (in voice of Asia) of Sikhs parading for world peace in Houston recently! A peace march with swords?! What's next? 

Photo Source: Sikh Center, Houston

To an outsider, this probably would look like a group of Taliban folks pledging to execute a Fatwa!  It takes an Indian to understand the cultural significance of swords in Sikhism.

On a slightly different note, I wonder if I could justify attending these parades on skipping work, by calling in Sikh :-)

The Origin of Species - God

Caricature Source: Austin American Statesman

Texas State Board of Education is considering teaching school kids the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution.  Science educators argue that teaching of weaknesses implies the support of intelligent design, and hence weaknesses should not be included in the text books.

I say, if there is a potential for weakness, teach it, along with the weakness of intelligent design argument.  Failure of evolution theory should in no way be construed as validation of intelligent design hypothesis.  If someone is not a Democrat, we don't conclude that he (or she) is a Republican; do we? He could be an independent, or someone who doesn't give a hoot about politics.  Intelligent design should be proven based solely on its own merit.  We probably are missing key facts that support both arguments. 

May be we came into being due to intelligent design and evolution.  May be a higher power created conditions conducive for evolution, and soon fish became monkeys and monkeys became humans.  Who knows? But we shouldn't lie to the posterity on what we do know.  I mean, not saying anything when we know something, would be a lie.  We shouldn't suppress the truth due to the fear of its misinterpretation - my 2¢.  

The Seven Aphorisms of Summum

Enjoyed listening to excerpts from Supreme Court Justice's arguments on Summum monument dispute on the radio today. Summum wants to place its guiding principles in a Pleasant Grove, Utah, park where the Ten Commandments are also displayed. The Court seems to be having a heartache in allowing this. Summum's aphorisms (see below) sound pretty similar to writings in Hinduism. The founder of this religion/philosophy, Corky Ra, says that he encountered extra-terrestrials, and he finds merit in mummification - pretty interesting!

1. Summum is mind, thought; the universe is a mental creation.

2. As above, so below; as below, so above.

3. Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.

4. Everything is dual; everything has an opposing point; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes bond; all truths are but partial truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled.

5. Everything flows out and in; everything has its season; all things rise and fall; the pendulum swing expresses itself in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates.

6. Every cause has its effect; every effect has its cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is just a name for Law not recognized; there are many fields of causation, but nothing escapes the Law of Destiny.

7. Gender is in everything; everything has its masculine and feminine principles; Gender manifests on all levels.

Barsana Dham

The last Saturday's Austin American Statesman featured a full-page article on Barsaha Dham of Austin.

The organization said it donates millions of dollars to charity, much of it to Indian hospitals, including two it built and operates. Its umbrella organization, Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat, recently announced that it was building a university in India and had donated $448,000 to assist flood victims in India. Barsana Dham took in evacuees from Hurricane Ike.

Good to know that they are doing a lot of charity work. As I wrote before, Barsana Dham is a beautiful place, has a gorgeous interior (esp. the ceiling resembling the sky), and is filled with nice people who don't push visitors to join the organization or donate money. Also, they serve delicious lunch/prasad on Sundays!

But I just don't get the concept of Swamijis. I find it really odd when humans start behaving like they are Gods.  I feel that these Swamijis are not immune to human frailties.  Given the favorable conditions, their weaknesses probably are subdued; for the same reason why a normal person wouldn't feel compelled to steal a loaf of bread. On one side, they keep implying that they are merely mortal God's dogs.  At the same time, when people treat them like deities, they don't seem to object too much.  

In India, a decent number of sanyasis don't seem to care about their chassis (bodies), let their beard and hair grow wildly, while they are working on cleaning their engine (i.e., purifying heart).  I mean, I came across a few people who were living way more modestly when compared to the means available to them. 

In few swamijis I came across in the US (not sure if this is a representative sample), I failed to notice any signs of renunciation. They maintain well-manicured beards, wear expensive silk garments, and allow gold rings to adorn their fingers.  It is like sticking to diet coke (i.e., preaching) while consuming cheese cake and pizza as staple diet (i.e., practice)!

Anyway, like our good friend Harini rightly says (and I agree with), the bottom line is, they are helping the the poor and speaking kind words, and we should respect them for that.

Photo: Sadhu Soccer by Phronesisaical

Vique's Law

A man without religion is like a fish without bicycle - Vique's Law

Picture: Basscycle by Holly Berry

Boloji says,

...it may be worthwhile to analyze why and how an unorganized religion like Hinduism could survive all these thousands of years. The simple answer is because it was never organized. If religion is for realization of God, then organized religion is definitely an oxymoron which can never succeed in practice. Leave it unorganized and Hinduism shall always remain a Sanatana Dharma with no beginning and no end. All that is required is physical protection for the followers but never the faith as such.

These are pretty much my thoughts too. Once we start religious franchises, the absolute power will start corrupting absolutely.

Denigration of Hinduism - Part Trois

This in response to Shree Shirodkar's comments on my earlier blog post Denigration of Hinduism.

Comment 1: Is it not our responsibility to help educate society about the sacred concepts and dispel misconceptions as propagated by such crudeness on Hinduism? Here the so-called humor is about something held sacred in our Holy Scriptures.

Response 1.  To begin with, I did not see this picture as "crude".  I see a case if Lord Krishna is shown as emulating Obama, not the other way around.  They did not alter Lord Krishna's idol/picture in any way.  Also, it is not a revulsive picture.

I do believe that we need to attempt to dispel misconceptions.  So far, I have not seen convincing evidence that Ramayana and Mahabharata have actually happened.  My belief in God based on gut feeling can be a misconception.  It would be inconsistent if we hold on to the misconceptions that we revere, and loathe the rest.  Also, whether we dress like Him or not, isn't Lord Krishna present in every atom of the universe? When that is the case, where is the possibility for crudeness? I mean, if you say (1) God is not crude and (2) God is every where, don't (1) and (2) together imply that there is no crudeness in the universe?

Comment 2: Amazing to learn that one can "loved the image". What was so inspiring about it dear Gopa?

Answer 2: I didn’t see any inspiration in it, dear Shirodkar ji. I “loved” the colors, artfulness, and creativity.

Comment 3: Wonder why TOI chose to publish such a crude picture?

Answer 3: Probably because they thought that it was catchy and funny. I don’t think they meant to insult Hindus. Even if they did, I don’t think their action would warrant us to issue Fatwa on TOI.  Everyone will pay for their actions (and inactions when an action is expected) eventually.

Comment 4: Think it is not correct to consider yourself as a murderer in this case, it was his time that he had to go.

Answer 4: I did not consider myself a murderer. My expression was akin to a rhetorical question. You are right. There is no murder involved, and we both are on the same page on this.

Comment 5:  Again after studying your case B,"historic buried treasure" means money I take it. Luxurious life with money, yes but one cannot claim that he/she was happy for 50 years. Money can buy things but not happiness or health or bliss. You neither accumulated negative or positive karma by fetching him treasure.

Answer 5: I think you missed the main point I was trying to drive in. In case B, I tried to kill somebody. But that attempt ended up benefiting him. The intent of this example was to express my opinion on the net karmic impression that I would accumulate due to the chain of events initiated by me.

I disagree with you on the net result. I believe that I would accumulate negative karma in this case, as I performed karma with wickedness in my heart. If this action won’t result in prarabdha, which kind actions would?

Now, I believe that to an extent, money does bring happiness. But the happiness starts to plateau after accumulating certain wealth, for most of the people, I think. People who say “money can’t buy happiness” are those who already acquired enough money that would ensure food and shelter in their foreseeable future. I am yet to hear “money can’t buy happiness” from a person who involuntarily starved (like a beggar) for a few days. We need some money to take care of basic needs and offer us some level of security in the immediate future. But, I think it would hurt us, if we go crazy about money, start growing ulcers, and keep losing sleep over it.

Comment 6: Lord Krushna and his principals are way above than human created legal context aren't they?

Answer 6: Yes. Also, Lord Krishna probably will not lose sleep because TOI dressed up Obama to look like Him, in a picture.

Comment 7: As you correctly said that the energy controlling this universe knows a lot better. Do we know what energy we are referring to?

Answer 7: I was referring to Shakti, the intelligent designer, who we probably cannot comprehend with our senses.

General Comment: I thank you for your time and patient audience, and hope that these points will help develop a mutual understanding between your blog and those who have taken the time to protest the denigration for this picture.

Answer 8: I too thank you for your detailed comment, Shirodkar ji. Please understand that I am trying to be honest to myself, and to you.  I talked straight without sugar-coating my opinions.  It is not my intent to be disrespectful. If I came across that way, I apologize.

Denigration of Hinduism - Part Deux

In May 2008, I blogged my opinion on Times of India’s publication of a picture of Obama-Clinton dressed as Radha and Lord Krishna. Shree Nilesh Shirodkar has kindly taken his time to express his opinion on this blog post. As he expressed his interest in sharing his opinion with the readers of this blog, I posted his verbatim comments below. Dear Shirodkar Ji, Thanks for your comments. I will respond to your comments in a few days. For now, I highlighted the comments that I intend to address.

Namaskar dear Shree Gopa

I recently happened to read your response on your blog to the Clinton and Obama image in TOI.

Since I am a Hindu concerned by the denigration of Hindu sacred concepts in this picture, I request your audience for the below points. Through them, it is my humble attempt to explain why it is important for us to do something about some denigration which comes across like a crude and rude depiction.

Is it not our responsibility to help educate society about the sacred concepts and dispel misconceptions as propagated by such crudeness on Hinduism? Here the so-called humor is about something held sacred in our Holy Scriptures

Does any of our Scriptures sanction joking about the sacred? Today, what little faith and following Hindus have in Hinduism is a result of our ancestors teaching us by example its importance through revering the various Hindu Holy practices and concepts. If we not only turn a blind eye towards such denigration of Hindu sacred concepts, but also encourage each other to laugh along, what ideals will it set for our future generations? Can we expect our future generations, growing up under an increasingly materialistic, non-Hindu influence, to hold those Hindu concepts sacred in that case? The biggest danger I see of condoning this issue, especially when our opinion was sought after from a Hindu, is the precedent it sets for far more denigrating pictures or movies on Hinduism in future, as being ‘ok by Hindus’.

Before a person can be expected to stand up for the cause of Hinduism, he will need to have sufficient pride and feeling for the cause, which will come only after some education about the cause. As representatives from Hindu organizations, is it not our responsibility to help educate our Hindu community about the sacred concepts and dispel misconceptions as propagated by such picture in widely distributed news paper.

Amazing to learn that one can "loved the image". What was so inspiring about it dear Gopa?

Although the Hindu dharma is known to be tolerant, we should not also make it known to be coward too. Wonder why TOI chose to publish such a crude picture?

Analyzing your case studies
Case A:

Think it is not correct to consider yourself as a murderer in this case, it was his time that he had to go. You attempted to pull him away from death but he died anyway. Your effort was admirable from a your view point, however he was destined to die that moment. Thus you will neither acquire negative or positive karma. You were negligible there in that situation.


Case B: Again after studying your case B,"historic buried treasure" means money I take it. Luxurious life with money, yes but one cannot claim that he/she was happy for 50 years. Money can buy things but not happiness or health or bliss.

you neither accumulated negative or positive karma by fetching him treasure.

As you correctly said that the energy controlling this universe knows a lot better. Do we know what energy we are referring to?

Lord Krushna and his principals are way above than human created legal context aren't they?

Makes me wonder when one Hindu speaks about denigration, immediately several Hindu roar that its being fanaticism. Let alone other religions.

Dear Shree Gopa its not about going crazy over a picture published by a newspaper, its about your faith and my faith and faith or our children's and generations to come.

I thank you for your time and patient audience, and hope that these points will help develop a mutual understanding between your blog and those who have taken the time to protest the denigration for this picture.

Sincerely,

Nilesh Shirodkar

Dharmo rakshati rakshitaha

George Carlin on Religion

I thoroughly enjoyed watching George Carlin's Saving the Planet on Raama's blog. I love George Carlin's comedy and the only thing that discourages me from blogging his stand-ups is his frequent use of obscenities. If not for that, I enjoy his persuasive presentation of his view points (even though I don't agree with all of them).

Fortunately, as Raama judged prudently, his occasional flagrant language in Saving the Planet is pretty tolerable. Also, I agree with Carlin's view point, most of our love for Earth, has "I" factor in it.

On attending a couple of live comedy shows, I realized that the folks who attend these shows (with families!) have high tolerance for vulgarity. There are a few comedians like Josh Blue and Raj Sharma who refrain from using vulgarities; at least, they didn't, when I saw them live at Capitol City Comedy Club last year. Now that I watched George Carlin on a highly respectable blog, I mustered courage to post the following Carlin's classic. I do not agree with his atheistic views, but I agree with his (to put it mildly!) aversion to organized religions, some of which are being run like large corporations now. Be warned - the language in this video is not appropriate for children.

God is Love?

I see the statement God is Love* often, and wonder if we can make such statements. If we say that God is something, aren't we implying that God isn't everything else other than that something? Basically, by saying God is love, we are defining limits to God, implying that He (She/It) is x,y, and z (e.g., lover) and not a,b, and c (e.g., destroyer). How can an Infinite Being have limitations?

An Infinite Spirit can have many attributes - like Krishna, the lover, and Maha Kali, the destroyer. It makes sense to me if we say I choose to pray to the loving attributes of the God. This way, we are not ruling out the existence of Kali.

I believe that, logically speaking, the statements God is love and God is destroyer have the same weakness (we can't prove them) and the same strength (they are not falsifiable). We choose to believe that God is love with absolutely no basis, because it comforts us.

* One might argue that a statement I am going to movie on Monday doesn't mean that I am not going to movie on any other day than Monday. I say, this analogy wouldn't apply for the statement God is love. Because, many believe that God is love, and only love. In my opinion, all we can say about God is, we don't know, and then just pray for the wisdom. I don't think that we can even say that God is infinite. Wouldn't it be an arrogance on our part to say, if I can't comprehend it, it has to be infinite?

Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?

Here is an excellent essay by William D. Phillips, a Nobel Laureate in physics.

Now that we have scientific explanations for the natural phenomena that mystified our ancestors, many scientists and non-scientists believe that we no longer need to appeal to a supernatural God for explanations of anything, thereby making God obsolete. As for people of faith, many of them believe that science, by offering such explanations, opposes their understanding that the universe is the loving and purposeful creation of God. Because science denies this fundamental belief, they conclude that science is mistaken. These very different points of view share a common conviction: that science and religion are irreconcilable enemies. They are not.

I am a physicist. I do mainstream research; I publish in peer-reviewed journals; I present my research at professional meetings; I train students and postdoctoral researchers; I try to learn from nature how nature works. In other words, I am an ordinary scientist. I am also a person of religious faith. I attend church; I sing in the gospel choir; I go to Sunday school; I pray regularly; I try to "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with my God." In other words, I am an ordinary person of faith. To many people, this makes me a contradiction—a serious scientist who seriously believes in God. But to many more people, I am someone just like them. While most of the media's attention goes to the strident atheists who claim that religion is foolish superstition, and to the equally clamorous religious creationists who deny the clear evidence for cosmic and biological evolution, a majority of the people I know have no difficulty accepting scientific knowledge and holding to religious faith.

As an experimental physicist, I require hard evidence, reproducible experiments, and rigorous logic to support any scientific hypothesis. How can such a person base belief on faith? In fact there are two questions: "How can I believe in God?" and "Why do I believe in God?"

On the first question: a scientist can believe in God because such belief is not a scientific matter. Scientific statements must be "falsifiable." That is, there must be some outcome that at least in principle could show that the statement is false. I might say, "Einstein's theory of relativity correctly describes the behavior of visible objects in our solar system." So far, extremely careful measurements have failed to prove that statement false, but they could (and some people have invested careers in trying to see if they will). By contrast, religious statements are not necessarily falsifiable. I might say, "God loves us and wants us to love one another." I cannot think of anything that could prove that statement false. Some might argue that if I were more explicit about what I mean by God and the other concepts in my statement, it would become falsifiable. But such an argument misses the point. It is an attempt to turn a religious statement into a scientific one. There is no requirement that every statement be a scientific statement. Nor are non-scientific statements worthless or irrational simply because they are not scientific. "She sings beautifully." "He is a good man." "I love you." These are all non-scientific statements that can be of great value. Science is not the only useful way of looking at life.

What about the second question: why do I believe in God? As a physicist, I look at nature from a particular perspective. I see an orderly, beautiful universe in which nearly all physical phenomena can be understood from a few simple mathematical equations. I see a universe that, had it been constructed slightly differently, would never have given birth to stars and planets, let alone bacteria and people. And there is no good scientific reason for why the universe should not have been different. Many good scientists have concluded from these observations that an intelligent God must have chosen to create the universe with such beautiful, simple, and life-giving properties. Many other equally good scientists are nevertheless atheists. Both conclusions are positions of faith. Recently, the philosopher and long-time atheist Anthony Flew changed his mind and decided that, based on such evidence, he should believe in God. I find these arguments suggestive and supportive of belief in God, but not conclusive. I believe in God because I can feel God's presence in my life, because I can see the evidence of God's goodness in the world, because I believe in Love and because I believe that God is Love.

Does this belief make me a better person or a better physicist than others? Hardly. I know plenty of atheists who are both better people and better scientists than I. I do think that this belief makes me better than I would be if I did not believe. Am I free of doubts about God? Hardly. Questions about the presence of evil in the world, the suffering of innocent children, the variety of religious thought, and other imponderables often leave me wondering if I have it right, and always leave me conscious of my ignorance. Nevertheless, I do believe, more because of science than in spite of it, but ultimately just because I believe. As the author of Hebrews put it: "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Denigration of Hinduism?

I noticed that a good number of Hindus were upset by the way Clinton and Obama were depicted (above) in The Times of India (TOI), about a couple of months ago. To me, looks like TOI did not mean to insult Lord Krishna and Radha Rani here. But, if I were TOI, I would feel sorry for hurting the feelings of the devotees, and I would express the same on print.

However, to me, the key in determining guilt vs. innocence in a general sense is, the intent. Let us see if I can express what I mean, by cooking up a couple of hypothetical scenarios.

Case A: I was standing next to a person on a railway platform. As the train approached close to the platform, I saw this person stumbling, and realized that he was about to fall on the tracks to his death. With a rush of adrenaline, to save him, I held his hand and pulled him away from the tracks with all my energy. He fell on the platform away from the train, but he hit his head on a concrete step, and died on the spot. I committed a murder!

Case B: Due to my hatred, I took law into my hands, and tried to kill an official (who I thought was corrupt) by throwing him off of a moving train into a river, in a remote jungle. He survived the fall miraculously, and managed to swim to the shore. In addition to his survival, he found a historic buried treasure chest on the river bank. With this windfall (resulting from free fall!), he lived a luxurious life for the rest of his life. So, my act resulted in the happiness of a person for 50 years.

Now, would I acquire negative karma in Case A and positive karma in Case B? I think not! The energy controlling this universe knows a lot better.

If we look at this in legal context, at least in the US (the land of South Park) where the first amendment to the US Constitution is treated with reverence, TOI will be well protected from opposition.

So, say, for being a devotee (leaning towards fanaticism) of Lord Krishna, if I assume wrongly that TOI is a villain, create a huge uproar, cause the newspaper to shut down its operation, and cause 10,000 employees to lose their lively hood, how would my actions affect my karma? I think, while I would earn some brownie points for my love for the Lord, I probably would inherit a significantly more negative karma for the hatred (towards TOI) in my heart.

Hindu's are known for tolerance, and I think we would be better off by not going crazy on this case. The TOI guys were trying to be creative and it backfired - that's all. If we happen to know that someone is denigrating our values purposefully, then we can address that issue differently (starting with peaceful means, of course).

Belief in Belief

I used to think that Rajneesh was a radical and hypocritical cult leader (who owned about one hundred Rolls Royce cars). May be he was all that and much more, or may be not. Whoever he was, his thought process in The Book of Understanding impressed me, and it made too much sense. His main preaching was, self-realization is a do-it-yourself thing, and renunciation hurts spiritual progress. Gita said the same thing, but I think it wasn't stressed and elaborated adequately.

I do not believe in believing. My approach is to know, and knowing is a totally different dimension. It starts from doubt, it does not start from believing. The moment you believe in something, you have stopped inquiring. Belief is one of the most poisonous things to destroy human intelligence.

All the religions are based on belief; only science is based on doubt. And I would like the religious inquiry also to be scientific, based on doubt, so that we need not believe but we can come to know someday the truth of our being, and the truth of the whole universe.

Is Gita Saying "What Really Matters is Antimatter"?

On blogging an article from Parade on Dark Energy, and soon after reading Is Dark Matter the Formless Brahmn?, I came across a couple of interesting slokas, verses 4 and 5 in Chapter 7 (Jnana Vignana Yoga) of Bhagavad Gita (see below, Telugu version). Are these slokas referring to antimatter? I don't jump to conclusions easily in topics of this nature, but I thought it was pretty intriguing.

Pl. see below for the same slokas from a copy of condensed భగవద్గీత (different publisher) gifted to me by my మామయ్య on November17, 1990.

Sab Kaa Maalik Ache!

I noticed that many (people on third rock from the sun in general - excluding a minority of folks) find it painful if others try to share their beliefs with us. Case in point? A recent experience of one of my relatives (a Hindu, in India) who is an excellent, warm-hearted, loving, caring, and highly-principled person (but, is a human just like you and me).

During Christmas'07, one of his Hindu colleagues wished him a merry Christmas in his office. He was terribly upset about this, and he blatantly told that colleague never to wish him on Christmas again. He is concerned that more and more Hindus are forgetting about our cultural heritage, and are following the west indiscriminately. I see his angle, but I would have reacted differently. To me, the basics are:

(1) That poor guy is wishing us well, even out of his idiocy in the worst case. I just would reciprocate in kind.

(2) At least some teachings of Hinduism say: (a) do things in the name of God (b) God is one, you can call Him (Her/It) by any name of your choice. So, what was this well-wisher's crime? He called the God with a wrong name?! Didn't he just do me a favor by reminding me of God, Who I am supposed to be thinking of anyway? I fail to see a reason for not being elated on this wish.

Imagine Hindus hugging each other on Ramadan and Muslims doing likewise for Diwali? Wouldn't it be nice? Just because there are radicals on the other side, we shouldn't strive to be one on our's. We must remember that there are both good things and bad things in any religion (Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam are no exceptions) or practice; we just have to be picky.

When we go to a grocery store, we just don't buy only oranges, do we? We buy oranges and apples and whatever else we like. And if we find some nasty fruits on display, we tell the store manager about them! Why shouldn't it be the same with religion? If we come across something we like in any religion, why not use it? We don't have to wait till we go to Varanasi and verify if the manuscript of Mandukya Upanishad agrees with it or not!

Embracing (good parts of) other cultures is a reflection of our strength, not of our weakness by any measure. If we are on Indo-Pak border and we are not fortunate enough to have the luxury of equanimity, it is slightly a different story. For the rest of us who are far removed from the mayhem, there is no need to build grudges. I know, it is not practical and all that. Also, I can hear a faint sound of a few axes grinding!

Indian and Pakistani Independence Day

Pakistan and India have celebrated their షష్టి పూర్తి (60th birthday) on August 14th and August 15th of 2007 respectively. Read somewhere that Lord Mountbatten arranged this way (indepenedence day, a day apart), so that he could attend independence day ceremonies in both countries (not sure if it is true). I wish both of these countries well. I felt bad about the renewed tensions in Kashmir. It shouldn't be this way.

There are fanatics on both sides of the border (more on one side than the other, depending on who we talk to). I think we, the educated in India and Pakistan should start respecting each other. Many of us agree on religious tolerance, just in theory. But when we realize that a group of narrow-minded people on the other side of the fence are hating us, we would reciprocate in kind (eye for an eye thing). If we too behave like the bad guys, what is the difference between them and us?

Among my family and Indian friends, I felt that the majority just do not like Pakistan and they see (at least deep down inside) it as an inferior country. My take on this is, it is OK to disapprove a country's choices, but "hatred" is not good for our soul. If we think that they need help to grow, why not wish them well?

Sure, I can make the biggest garland in town for Shirdi Sai Baba. But if I don't listen to what He is saying (Hindu-Muslim unity), am I really respecting Him? I don't know if He actually made specific statements to this effect, but I can't imagine Him saying "those Muslims are nuts, hate them". Of course, my criticism also applies to the majority Pakistanis who hate Hindus.

Early this year in Vizag, one of my relatives (a very nice person) said that he and his dad were jumping out of joy and cheering when Babri Masjid was being destroyed. He developed this hatred because he grew up as a minority Hindu in Hyderabad Old City, and he was discriminated and harassed in his childhood. If I were in his shoes, I probably would have reacted the same way. Some of us are fortunate and did not have to put up with this kind of humiliation. However, we manage to develop this religious hatred based on second-hand knowledge. My question is, why are we crossing this bridge before reaching it?

I am really fortunate that I have been exposed to excellent Muslim roommates and some kind-hearted Pakistani friends. Though I am far from perfection, I feel blessed because I wasn't exposed to circumstances that instilled hatred for Muslims. However, I do realize that I probably will have a different view if I were living in Kashmir right now.

I can visualize at least a couple of my (non-Sea Sands) friends in India fuming over my radical view point in this blog post:-( If you say that I am ignorant and crazy, I would say "tell me something that I don't know!" and also "It took you this long to figure this out?!" . Finally, Augsut 15th is a good day for me as it is also the birthday of my అక్క(Ramani) and బావ (Anand). Peace out yall'.

At the dawn of history India started on her unending quest, and trackless centuries are filled with her striving and the grandeur of her success and her failures. Through good and ill fortune alike she has never lost sight of that quest or forgotten the ideals which gave her strength. We end today a period of ill fortune and India discovers herself again. The achievement we celebrate today is but a step, an opening of opportunity, to the greater triumphs and achievements that await us. Are we brave enough and wise enough to grasp this opportunity and accept the challenge of the future? - Nehru, on Indian Independence Day.

If we want to make this great State of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well-being of the people, and especially of the masses and the poor... you are free- you are free to go to your temples mosques or any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state... in due course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to Muslims- not in a religious sense for that is the personal faith of an individual- but in a political sense as citizens of one state. - Jinnah on Pakistani Independence Day.